crime prevention

Question 1

what can be argued about the way modern cities are designed?

Answer 1

they are unsafe and encourage crime

Question 2

what did jane jacobs say?

Answer 2

reducing visibility and the number of ‘eyes’ on an area causes problems

Question 3

what three ideas did jane jacobs talk about?

Answer 3

territoriality- the ability of users to take control of manage their space; surveillance- potential offenders prefer anonymity and avoid surveillance; and crowding out crime- activity increases surveillance and reduces criminal opportunities

Question 4

what was the pruitt-igoe lesson?

Answer 4

completed in 1956, a utopian solution to ‘urban decay’. demolished in the 70s due to its design.
spacing encouraged crime- as it isolated the community.
a great failure of modern architecture

Question 5

what concept did newman introduce in 1972?

Answer 5

‘defensible space’- space is considered defensible if it can be clearly perceived as belonging to a person or group of people.

Question 6

what are the issues with blocks of flats?

Answer 6

there are numerous spaces which do not appear to belong to anyone, e.g., stairwells, lifts, parking areas and shared gardens

Question 7

what are these numerous spaces considered to be of?

Answer 7

‘secondary’ significance, as residents feel a diminished sense of responsibility for these areas

Question 8

issues with high-rise buildings and defensible space

Answer 8

residents struggle to distinguish who lived in their building or neighbourhood- which could make identifying potential criminals more difficult.
newman argued this leads to a reduced sense of community with criminal activity less easily detected and challenged.

Question 9

what else did newman research?

Answer 9

looked at van dyke and brownsville in the new york protects; a series of high-rise blocks vs low-rise with courtyards.
had a similar social density, but crime and vandalism was far higher in van dyke.

Question 10

why was crime lower in brownsville?

Answer 10

low-rise flags had a common, visible entrance which gave residents greater opportunities for surveillance and strangers were more likely to be challenged.
more cared for communal areas, wall papered and tended gardens put criminals off.

Question 11

what were people in brownsville more likely to do?

Answer 11

leave their doors open and let their children play out. neighbourhoods met more which created community vs the vandalism being carried out by van dyke children.

Question 12

what experiment was carried out in van dyke and brownsville?

Answer 12

played a tape recording of an argument- van dyke bolted their doors and turned the tv up, whereas brownsville challenged researchers before they entered the building and came out immediately

Question 13

factors for defensible space

Answer 13

zone of territorial influence- fence, hedge…
opportunities for surveillance- small groups make community
image- individuality, decorations…
milieu- open spaces attract vandalism

Question 14

what is the broken windows theory?

Answer 14

visible signs of disorder and misbehaviour in an environment encourage further disorder, misbehaviour and crime.

Question 15

what did wilson and kelling aim to find?

Answer 15

a situational explanation for crime- disorderly neighbourhoods lead eventually to serious crime.

Question 16

what did wilson and kelling‘s study link to?

Answer 16

when zimbardo left a car abandoned with its hood up in a rough neighbour and a more upmarket area.
in the first instance the car was quickly destroyed, and the second lasted a week until zimbardo partially damaged it.
badly vandalised within hours.

Question 17

what did wilson and kelling aim to challenge?

Answer 17

existing beliefs about the fear of crime and the role of the police

Question 18

what did wilson and kelling find about police attitudes?

Answer 18

existing police attitudes to foot patrol were negative. chiefs felt it reduced mobility and manageability, and officers viewed it as punishment and hard work.
a 5-year evaluation found it did not reduce crime rates.

Question 19

what did residents report in wilson and kelling’s study?

Answer 19

reported feeling that crime had been reduced, and took fewer behavioural cautions like staying home with foote locked.

Question 20

what happened to foot patrol officers?

Answer 20

they had higher morale and job satisfaction, as well as improved relations with the community.
rather than catching criminals, they were preventing crime through maintaining public order.

Question 21

who were officers able to get to know?

Answer 21

‘regulars’ and ‘strangers’, but not all regulars were decent people. officers helped these people learn boundaries- as drunks could sit on steps but not lie down.

Question 22

how did officers and residents work together?

Answer 22

established rules and both worked to maintain them. made people feel more comfortable reporting disorder.

Question 23

what did wilson and kelling conclude?

Answer 23

disorder and crime are linked; broken windows affects residents attitudes- as elderly are unable to move from a decaying neighbourhood, which increases crime further as n-one is ‘watching’.

Question 24

implications for the role of the police

Answer 24

changing focus of policing from keepers of order to crime fighting has reduced community relations; tackling low-level anti social behaviour is important; no personal bias/judgement-treat all offended the same to show police care about all crime levels, and to avoid disorder.

Question 25

what can be understood through broken windows?

Answer 25

the relationship between low-level and serious crime

Question 26

situational crime prevention

Answer 26

instead of targeting offenders, look at the environment to minimise opportunists for crime or make criminal acts appear risky.
draws on defensible space and rational choice theory.
includes target hardening, creating defensible space and increasing risk of detection.
takes into account rational choice theory

Question 27

target hardening

Answer 27

environmental intervention designed to alter the cost benefit of committing a crime- makes target harder and less attractive, e.g., locks, tagging, immobiliser.
criminals can simply change tactics and targets, e.g., identity fraud. this is a big criticism of situational crime prevention.

Question 28

creating defensible space/access control

Answer 28

entry phones, fences, electronic access to buildings. if the risk of being observed is too high, an offender may refrain from the activity.

Question 29

increasing risk of detection

Answer 29

neighbourhood watch schemes and property marking measures.
the community works together to increase surveillance, reporting and deterrence of crime.
CCTV, street lighting, electronic tagging in shops.
denying benefits/makeing the crime less ‘worth it’

Question 30

stimulating consicence

Answer 30

putting up signs such as ‘shoplifting is stealing’